More trees please

I have always liked trees. I was brought up on the romance of the English forests – the adventure of Robin Hood in Sherwood, the lovers in Shakespeare’s Arden, the beauty of local mixed deciduous tree woods, the walks to see primroses or to retrieve a conker from the forest floor. The landscape looks magnificent when the varied greens of the tree canopy in a wood or the mixed leaves in a coppice or hedgerow punctuate the landscape.

So I welcome the conclusion of the recent Report of the Climate Change Committee that urges us to plant more trees. I am glad the government is pressing ahead anyway with an expanded national forest. I trust also it will find ways to stimulate more tree plantations to deliver the wood we need.It makes little sense to import so much wood from Scandinavia, Canada and elsewhere. It seems particularly absurd to claim it is a green idea to burn so much wood at Drax that has come across the Atlantic in fuel burning ships. We need more faster growing timber for basic uses and for energy, and some good quality slower growing hardwoods for furniture and construction. The heart of English architecture and shipbuilding was always English oak. We could grow more and use more English oak for a variety of enduring purposes.

I am all in favour of a greener policy than we follow in many respects. I want us to get rid of VAT on green products like insulation, heating controls and draught excluders as soon as we are allowed to out of the EU. I am a strong advocate of more fuel efficiency and better home insulation. I want us to keep more green spaces and gaps between settlements. In my own part of the world the pace of housebuilding and the erosion of countryside is too fast. I want a future plan that is gentler on the landscape. I want more food production at home to cut food miles. I want a fishing policy that is kinder to our fish and to local fishermen and women.

The Climate Change Report contains some important figures. It reminds us that the UK has done more than most to cut CO2 output, now down by 44% from 1990 levels. The UK consumes 7 tonnes of carbon a head a year compared to the EU’s 9, China’s 10 and the USA’s 20. If we carry on with current targets the UK will increase the average global temperature according to their models by 0.005 degrees C by 2070. They want us to go further so the increase the UK contributes is just 0.001 degrees C.

I want to concentrate on greening the landscape and reducing migration levels to cut the pressure of development on our countryside.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

168 Comments

Build on the green belt…more trees?
Rip up thousands of trees across the country ( for 5G?)…more trees?
HEDGE LAWS…more trees?
Minuscule gardens…more trees?
Over insulation = damp and black mould!
And now since the Tories know they are so popular compulsory vaccination is being mulled over!!
Deliver a true Brexit, earn trust ( unlikely ever now) before more heavy-handed measures!!

Stop building houses for the Tory mass immigration policy. Tories have pursued this policy for nine years while lying to say it will cut to tens of thousands. It is not possible to reach historic record high numbers for immigration and illegal immigration as an island. It was deliberate policy implemented by May for the Tories.

EU states third world immigration inevitable and desirable! Merkel claimed this week she has no regrets for her immigration policy! May promised to pay billions for Turkey agreement after U.K. Leaves EU and paid tens of millions to France for Calais! Immigrants on welfare get huge inflation increase, May singles out the police and blocks the police having a pay rise!

Insecure borders where inspectorate claimed in no stretch of the imagination are our borders secure, against a back drop of two terrorists atrocities where people were murdered! Again, May responsible for policy.

May pledged Miliband she would on his policy, Climate Change Act, even though it costs our industries like steel, pottery, glass to become uncompetitive. EU prevents state aid and has control over commerce directives.

Deluded May claims people want her servitude plan! No, they do not. Gauke claims the same saying your party needs to do a deal with Corbyn. Clue it will compound your destruction.

The results and comments on a host of sites show the public are aware of her rotten servitude plan and dishonest a KitKat policy to hide true costs and ties to EU. May needs to be booted out along with Sedwill, Robbins and co. New leader, new Brexit strategy, leave WTO and general election in six months.

Backstabber Gove claims No Deal is off the table and you all should vote for the servitude plan!

Gove has lost the plot. It is about time he and others who betrayed the nation understand it is about what the people want. Gove also supported Cameron when he made his claim that it was the publics choice not MPs etc etc. Cameron made it clear. Gove agreed with it as he was in cabinet. He did not resign. Backstabbing Gove seems to have forgotten all promises made to the public. MPs are to serve and implement the will of the people, as Cameron publicly claimed and he accepted.

WTO clean Brexit is what we voted for. No customs union, single market or ECJ. Notmby different names or slight of hand either. This firmly applies to May’s servitude plan, changing names to customs arrangement or single market territory to hide and deceive does not cut the mustard. It might conform to Gove’s lack of standards or integrity but not the public.

May’s servitude plan still keeps the U.K. In the customs union and single market as reported with discussions with Marxist Labour. Her servitude plan still gives overall power to the ECJ in a number of areas. What does this highly educated intelligent backstabber not understand when he voted for her betrayal of the nation? May’s servitude plan has received a historic defeat in parliament and twice more! Why does backstabber Gove, May or other remainers think it acceptable to keep brining it back!

Gove also says he learned from his backstabbing of Johnson, if that were true he would resign etc ed

“If we carry on with current targets the UK will increase the average global temperature according to their models by 0.005 degrees C by 2070.”

Sure, yet these religious soothsayers cannot even tell us what the climate will be next month (or even next week). But they can tell us the above with such specious accuracy. No sensible scientist would come up with such absurd projections. What population growth, sun spot and sun activity and volcanic activity have they allowed for in these models? Perhaps they could let us know this it would be useful. Especially to know when these volcanoes will go off for the people living near them.

CO2 concentrations are only one of millions of factors that affect the climate. Many factors are not known and cannot be known. The idea that CO2 levels are some kind of thermostat we can use to control world temperatures is for the birds. Sensible scientist know this very well.

I am all in favour of more trees and home produced timber where practical. Importing biofuels is idiotic. Done only so that governments can make bogus claims about how much electricity come from low CO2 sources.

31,487 American Scientists signed a petition supporting a Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research in 2008, concluding that: “Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions… and [ceteris parabus] the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.” http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

Could anyone tell me how much energy/CO2 is used to build a wind turbine, transport it, erect it, take it down, transport it and scrap it? I understand the life span of one is about 20 years. Therefore does it even produce more energy than it takes to build, transport, erect, take down and scrap? Particularly those at sea. Do the ones at sea effect the weather by reducing water being evaporated for rain?

Perhaps, Mike, it might have been better to address the other questions in Hope’s post – regarding the carbon footprint of one turbine (though Hope didn’t include initial manufacture, maintenance all the additional costs related to those things). And it’s the same with all these ”green” machines.
No, we can’t uninvent the wheel, but the truth should be told about just how environmentally UNfriendly these things are from their beginnings, and positively harmful at their ends. Solar panels being an example, I believe.

Before planting a billion trees ( no doubt bought from the dearest contractor) it might be a good idea if the Tories brought back planning laws.
They don’t want to waste any more money do they?
Here, having cut down many much loved and protested trees ( IN THE NIGHT) the Tory local govt planted thousands of £s worth of PALM TREES.
The poor chilly, soggy, browning things aren’t too keen on our weather…..
More trees?

As I said before, until the government save a huge numbers of flights by insisting everyone fly only in economy on full commercial aircraft (rather than first class, in mainly empty aircraft or by private jet) then we can safely assume that the government do not take this issue seriously. If they are not prepared to accept less leg room for a few hours to save perhaps half of the fuel per passenger mile then why trust anything government says on this issue.

Jeremy Hunt in the Guardian today. Grounds for hope in customs union talks with Labour, voters will punish both main parties if they cannot deliver Brexit.

May’s W/A is not Brexit it is an appalling £ 39bn straight jacket you dangerous PPE dope.

As Mervyn King put “a muddled commitment to perpetual subordination from which the UK cannot withdraw without the agreement of the EU”……. “It simply beggars belief that a government could be hellbent on a deal that hands over £39bn while giving the EU both the right to impose laws on the UK indefinitely and a veto on ending this state of fiefdom.”

Mervyn King seems to have become quite sensible now after his mistake of signing the totally wrongheaded letter (by 364 odd ‘top economists’) sent to Mrs Thatcher’s Government and G Howe’s budget back in 1981. I suppose he was only in his early 30s and had not had a job outside academia but even so.

There are some ideas so misguided that only group think academic economists could fall for them or group thing climate “scientists” /priests/soothsayers.

Mervyn King is a sensible voice, and is unfairly maligned for being governor at the time of the financial crisis when the fault (in the UK) lay mainly with the Blair- brown boom & bust and the transfer to the very inadequate old FSA of bank regulation. And of course with bank managements (& many borrowers etc). I think we can excuse his signature on the Q1 81 letter from the 364 predicting perma-recession due to Thatcherism. The timing was exquisite as the longest running boom started in Q2 of 81. Notable non-signatories included Patrick Minford…

I welcome the millions of trees but I think a serious attempt to reduce CO2 emissions would include a major push for new nuclear (not hinkley point) & shale gas.

I think putting Maggie ahead of Winnie is the result of how many fewer people have first-hand knowledge of Churchill’s achievements. Maggie is by far the most effective PM post-WW II, but Churchill and Pitt the Younger stand alone as Britain’s greatest PM’s.

LL, it is not £39 billion. That fake figure was an unquantifiable under estimate by the Treasury to keep the public calm about the true amount. The servitude plan has a number of areas where Traitor May agreed principles (subject areas) to continue to pay billions for an indeterminate number of years. The EU will decide how much and when. If there is a dispute the ECJ will decide!

The dishonesty started when May told us the money was for a trade deal. Commonly called the deal. Many commented it was illegal to pay for a trade deal. May dishonestly referred to her servitude plan as the deal to conflate what the public thought was a trade deal. After all MPs and ministers continued to say a trade deal would be signed a nanno second after we left. No one was being told there would not be a trade deal or that the deal was now meant to be May’s servitude plan. By proper definition it has been named a Withdrawal Agreement not a deal. That term was used to be dishonest and deceive the public.

No one ever said the money was for her servitude plan. Who would agree to such stupidity of wasting such a vast amount of our taxes over a number of indetermined years where the other party gets to say how much when and also is in control of any dispute! Oh, and for nothing in return or no legal requirement to pay such a sum! This in itself makes it a bad agreement, whether abstract, objective or subjective. No right minded person would call this a good deal like May repeatedly has. It is defrauding the taxpayer.

I do not remember that. Friedman was usually right on most things. What is nearly always needed (and is needed now in spades) is lower taxes, freedom of choice, much smaller government and far less government interference and red tape. It always works, this as governments spend you money so very inefficiently compared to businesses and individuals. Load is totally wasted and much is spent doing actual positive harm.

Public sector austerity and free the private sector up is what is needed.

“So I welcome the conclusion of the recent Report of the Climate Change Committee that urges us to plant more trees.”

I’d like you to reconcile your desire to plant more trees, which I applaud, with your frequently stated desire to cover over more green field sites with concrete and tarmac to accommodate the huge influx of immigration we’ve been and are being subjected to?

Reply I have spoken and written in favour of reducing onward migration rates

I agree with your desires and aspirations. However do not mix up climate change with environmental improvements.

Climate is almost exclusively the business of the sun. I’ve said it before, to think otherwise is to play Canute.

The environment is in our hands involving politics engineering and science. The rewards are vast in terms of quality of life and increased life expectancy and a reduced load on our NHS in terms of cancer, heart and respiratory disease. It can be done. Our forefathers cleared the “Big Stink”, the presence of “Smog” in the 60s, and we have borne down on smoking. It is in our hands. The obscenity of using the sea as a World tip is unforgivable and destroys a source of food. World legislation could halt it’s progress and giant vacuum cleaner ships could hoover it up and process it at the same time. Praise to those that collect it from our shores.

Think about population limitation, there being much more reproduction than the World can sustain.

If all these environmental actions have an effect on climate, it’s a bonus. The sun with the aid of volcanic eruptions and tectonic plate shifts is the climate driver. It is scientific folly to think otherwise. Just check out the climate changes to the World before industry was ever invented, and the World population was miniscule. Look to the science not the vociferous great unwashed and opportunist tax grabbing politicians.

Mass immigration from the developing world pushes up Carbon per head in the world. A ban immigration on all countries with carbon emissions below 5 would help save our imminent extinction according to activists.

However where Co emissions look high it’s because they produce liquid gas, so increasing immigration from the following countries would not reduce CO emisssions but ironically push it up per head as the population gets smaller.

Bahrain (23)
Brunei (22)
Kuwait (25)
Qatar (54)

We need an urgent evacuation from Australia and USA whose emissions are the highest per person (excluding gas and oil industry) due to electricity (air con) and transport (its big). Maybe send the navy over.

A sensible strategy based on proper scientific evidence would be a refreshing change from the hysteria which currently grips our parliament as it follows the Swedish “Chicken Licken”.
Apparently, fracking is bad because they do it in the USA and the USA is bad but re-opening coal mines is good because the workers love a good coalmine, don’t they and if it’s good for Germany it’s good for us?
As for power stations burning wood pellets imported from Canada…..

The valid lifetime views are well-expressed, yet perhaps time-prompted by a temporary surge in green Council seats yesterday, which was itself a reaction of voters switching to whatever exists beyond tolerating further the Conservative & Labour headlock deadlock.

Conservative attitude & performance on green issues are superior to those that the Green Party attempts to muster & rationalise. Labour in Sheffield are worse, having destroyed much of the city’s tree population solely with financial cuts.

The main driver of waste & pollution is over-population & excessive consumption. If the UK achieved near-zero on both, it would not make much difference within the whole world as a whole.

Erosion of the countryside ‘too fast’ is virtually a euphemism for ‘too far’. It is the loss that matters. Tolerating it gradually disguises its danger.

I must admit, I didn’t realise that America’s carbon output was quite so high compared to the rest of the world, at almost three times our own level. And double China’s output? Wow. That is clearly beyond the realm of acceptability and is completely indefensible.

I was willing to at least try such as chlorinated chicken (should we ever actually enjoy that freedom of choice in our supermarkets), but at that price they can keep it.

More trees would be great, more wind turbines would be great, and more electric cars would be great, but what would not be great is more compulsory vegetable-ism at the behest of the ghastly vegan community! I do not want to live on soya, tofu, nuts and berries, rather I would prefer red meat and dairy any day, including Fridays. That the skies might blanket over with the flatulent exhaust from sheep and cow bottoms, is ridiculous!

I agree with most of that David, especially when it comes to choice and not having to bow and scrape to the PC Vegan brigade.

I don’t have much time for Vegan nutters, but both my wife and I follow a vegan diet and it’s surprising how varied and tasty it is. My old gal makes some fantastic meals and the weekly shopping bill has been halved so it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, and being well over 16 stone wasn’t doing me any good at all.

I couldn’t eat any creature with a face. As for the popular items like kidneys, who likes to eat an organ that controls the body’s fluids? Yuck! Not to mention the ‘unmentionables’ that get minced up for the various other meat items.

The correlation between CO2 level and warming is poor, whereas it it is excellent when related to food output, surely good news when we are adding 6 million more people every month.
Logically we should therefore be encouraging more, not less, fossil fuel use.
And for goodness sake let’s get on with fracking rather than importing gas from Qatar. If Greg Clark and Claire Perry had been in office in 1830 we would never have had railways and we’d still be in stage-coaches.

It is stated that the UK past pollution from the 1700s has some responsibility to the rest of the world but how much has not been calculated. What profit have those non industrialised countries made from the industrialisation of the West which use the proceeds of the West’s knowledge and techniques for their own industrialisation?

It is also said that social and religious customs/practices which we don’t like and seem barbaric took us several centuries to leave so we can’t ask those societies to stop those practices immediately. So when a ‘backward’ country decides to start a car factory should they start with models of the 19th century?

Multiply the above across the Country, and thousands and thousands of perfectly good fully working appliances are just being wasted, due to the lack of a simple storage facility, and internal departments not communicating with each other.

Our clearance company advised us that Councils are now absolutely terrified of another Grenfell Tower incident, so want nothing whatsoever to do with electrical goods.

Whatever happened to simple patt testing which all Companies have to complete each year on some of their own appliances when installed in their own buildings, which I assume also includes Local Authorities. etc. ?

I don’t think you are going to be in any position to achieve your aims.
Maybe yesterday you didn’t spot that the Tories are a busted flush.
Your leader can’t see the wood for the trees as it is. She still thinks that the election result was due to her surrender document not being approved.
Utterly delusional.

She thinks her ‘deal’ is the ‘only’ deal and everyone MUST accept that she is right. In her mind, this latest calamity is not her fault, but the fault of those who would not do as they were told. It makes no difference that the so-called Withdrawal Agreement threatens to bind us into something we are trying desperately to escape from, and that it was ever likely to ruffle the feathers of the true blue patriots within her party..

So I do like your use of the term ‘utterly delusional’ but in her case, it doesn’t seem to quite cover it. There is something else at play. Either she is being swayed by external pro-EU influences (Philip maybe, whispering corporate nonsense on her ear on their pillow), or she is absolutely incapable of considering different ways forward.

Intransigence isn’t the sign of a strong leader, it is the sign of a totally unsuitable leader, or perhaps even a leader who needs professional clinical help.

Just imagine Theresa May at the head of a wartime government, being advised by her generals that a certain course of action will lead to disaster, and being equally intransigent. It has happened before in history and ruination was to follow.

In the name of God Tory party, grow a pair and get rid of May post haste!

In the words of one local councillor in our area:
”There is a message to government here, get on with Brexit, get us out of Europe quickly and I call on my colleagues in the Conservative Party who are not voting for Theresa May’s deal to vote for it and let’s get this deal done.”

They’re all at it.
It really makes one wonder if these self-important people have actually READ this so-called ”deal”.

I want all these things, but I also want manufacturers to move away from the “built-in obsolescence, throw-away, transfer the TRUE COST of our production practises to the customer and planet, so we can make obscene profits”, type of attitude. The planet needs time to recover, but it won’t while the polluters act with impunity.

Do they (manufacturers) really act with impunity Barbara?
Things do wear out and with daily use things break down or become worn out.
Things are built to a price customers are willing to pay.
The everlasting products you want might cost 5 or 10 times what you were prepared to pay.
Things get new improved design and performancelevels meeting new rules regulations and safety requirements.
Customers want the latest better products.
Manufacturers have to meet the requirements of customers or go out of business.
I’ve worked in manufacturing for decades and never seen obsolescence actually built in to the design of a product.

Yes but there is much “built-in obsolescence”. Perfectly good products that cannot be repaired due to either rip off spare parts, lack of spare parts or a design that make it totally uneconomic to repair.

Rechargeable batteries in tablets and phones that cannot be replaced for example. Or software updates that kill the product.

Ed2, Well, even such a thing like a basic plug which « in the good old days » could be dismantled and repaired very often comes now as a plastic block that can only be changed as a whole for usually £15+
As for your argument about the everlasting products, do I have to believe that a £1100 washing machine will last almost four times longer than a £300 one (when practically both will require a change of the rubber seal around the front window or a change of the pump after 4-5 years).
You appear prone to swallow hook, line and sinker all the advertisements, do you not? Try read the Which magazine …

Sealed plugs was a government imposed requirement
And yes there are products which cost several times the cheapest and last longer.
You choose which one to buy.
I dont swallow anything hefner.
It rather depends how often you use a product as to how long it lasts.
That is the great thing about capitalist market places they give you choice.
EG
Want a suit to last decades…Saville Row
Want a suit for a few months as a fashion item or a holiday trip well there are lots cheaper alternative shops to buy from.

Oh I see, Saville Row and top-of-the-range German-made washing machines. I certainly am not of that world. For what I can remember I do not think Which ever tested Saville Row suits. I am sorry to be so stuck-in-the-mud.

You are hef.
It is just the market gives you a choice.
Expensive products which may suit you and may last longer than cheaper products.
Or products which sit somewhere between the two edges.
You have a choice.
You do it every day.

What a lovely romantic first paragraph, but how do you grow more food when trees are planted on perfectly good farmland? Maybe you should advocate planting them on the southern downlands as well, after all they are only used for walking, training racehorses, grazing a few sheep and as viewing platforms – ah! but then there will be no way of viewing , you won’t be able to see the woods for the trees.

And when did the Tories get immigration down? As they say, dream on, but it’s a good day for Tories to hide from reality.

Perhaps the idea is that expressing ‘green’ will get some lost votes back.

So the Climate Change Committee wants the UK to have contributed no more than one thousandth of a degree to average global temperature in fifty years time. Hopefully, the fact that this nonsense is so utterly ludicrous will have been spotted well before then. Is it any wonder the electorate is in despair with the current crop of politicians, and looking around for sanity elsewhere.

We seem to have an obsession with CO2 which is distracting us from more serious harms that we do to the environment. If we are to survive alongside a vibrant natural world we need to curtail our encroachment which is more difficult than reducing our use of fossil fuels.

What is your opinion on the Glover review which may recommend new National Parks, for example upgrading the Dorset Jurassic Coast, Cotswolds and/or Chiltern Areas of Outstanding National Beauty to National Parks?

Some of these areas have very poor roads (e.g. A35 in Dorset) which may never be addressed if they pass through new national parks. There is also a sense that this incompetent government is not up to much more than declaring an AONB is now a National Park.

In Cambridge, we now have two major dual carriageways running westwards, with a third underway with badgers and many other species squashed all over the place. These roads plough through prime agricultural land and ancient woodland.

One rather vociferous female Green Party supporting contributor to this blog dismisses it as the acceptable price of progress. We build roads to ease traffic congestion. We get traffic congestion because of a surfeit of people wanting to move about, yet the leader of the Green Party wishes us to continue with free movement and pack as many people in as we can.

Theresa May cynically pays lip service to reducing immigration, but we know by now, it’s just more BS. Meanwhile, the settled community have their living standards diminished. Places that were accessible green spaces not so long ago, are no longer. Perversely, one now has to drive to find peace and solitude, so the upward spiral continues.

The countryside is certainly beautified by an abundance of trees. On the
other hand, windfarms can dwarf them, looming over the horizon like
marauding tripods from The War of the Worlds. I do not think planting
more trees will counteract that effect. Why does environmental policy leave me
yearning for the days of more beautiful landscapes?

Kevin, quite right. Wind turbines actually do a lot of damage to landscapes. Vast swathes of land is filled with concrete and then flooding occurs down below. In Scotland vast areas of peat land are being dug up and replaced by concrete platforms for turbines. These concrete slabs are the size of an Olympic swimming pool. Quite large!! The peat lands used to soak up CO2 but somehow I don’t think concrete has the same effect. Madness.

Can we please have more trees in our cities in particular London. Trees make a city much more romantic and interesting to be in than just bare grey streets (trees also freshen the air).

Tolkien loved trees as well – so much, that one of his main characters in Lord of The Rings is a tree – Treebeard, one of the ents – and the whole forest comes alive with ents as they take on Saruman who at one point tries to destroy the hobbit’s green shire.

I love trees too, however, local planners make big planting mistakes, don’t do the necessary husbandry on trees they plant and generally don’t do enough in Cities in the North, we have building after building, even overcrowded London doesn’t make the mistakes of Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool – Stoke doesn’t even have a centre they destroyed that City years ago and have ignored it since.

Why do builders put the horse chestnut, a tree that can grow as tall as about 115 feet (35 m), in small new home gardens, they grow too big and quickly casting too much shade and cutting off light , they get health issues and the conkers are a pain to clear up and try to stop kids throwing things into to break off the fruit for games. Same with the Sycamore just too big and sickly and large branches fall off!

Then don’t get me started on people who don’t look after the height of their conifers!

When Sheffield destroyed their street trees, did they use the cut down trees? Did they re-plant more suitable species for roadside growth? To me trees are a town planning issue and we have inadequate people making decisions rather than tree experts.

Trees and old woodlands are being cut down at an alarming rate to make way for housing estates. Same goes for farm land and paddocks. If there’s a quick buck to be made then the landscape takes second place. Its time building took place on old sites in towns and cities. Climate change is not the only driver of the extinction of many species. Its mans actions.

We are constantly told there are thousands of acres of brownfield sites standing empty. Why aren’t they used? Too much trouble, probably.

How much easier it is to bung up some tat on a nice flat field, levelled by centuries of hard toil in order to grow crops, taking out trees and hedgerows that are in the way – and pay a farmer mega bucks for the privilege.

Our own village is ruined – while only a few miles away, near to the city, huge areas of old railway land is lying idle and ugly.

‘The amount of CO2 emissions that construction can influence is significant, accounting for almost 47% of total CO2 emissions of the UK’

So forget about trees , the more the people you have means more building you need and the greater your carbon footprint. Oddly the organisations and political parties in favour of this greenery are the same who advocate mass immigration, yet for some reason the one or two sceptics in the Conservative party remain mute about this contradiction. Why? We are being asked to don hair shirts and live in caves while the political establishment are shoving in a city worth of immigrants every year .

I refuse to take a blind bit of notice of all this eco extremism until population sustainability becomes part of the equation, and when the political establishment and the BBC ( as one of the chief cheerleaders for this) leads the way in showing us how to live a carbon zero footprint. No more of this Miliband do as I say while he racks up 20k airmiles, or the BBC flying reporters to Brazil to stand in the middle of soybean field to lecture us about GW. After all it should be a doodle for politicians and the BBC to do this, for here are two occupations who get loads of money regardless of how good they are and who don’t have to show their economic worth. So politicians and BBC show us the way to this carbon zero existence. I get the feeling that when asked to put up they will very quickly shut up.

Absolutely right Sir John particularly the last paragraph. We also need to get some sensible people at the top of government who are not driven be media headlines and damaging the car industry. Before we go ”electric” we must first go ”hybrid” until the Dysons and other amongst us have solved battery storage. They will but be practical in the meantime.

(and whilst we bring more nature – in the form of trees – into our cities, can we please make our countryside more wild and green – instead of tarmacading and fencing and making a general fuss of walks and things like that)

I remember not long ago before the EU imposed tough environmental policies, WE were called the ‘dirty man of Europe’ and our old smoke stack industry accused of causing the acid rain which was killing off the trees in northern European countries. How things change.

None of the climate catastrophe fanatics predictions have proved correct in the last 25 years, not a single one. Given that we have just had record cold temperatures across the world and delayed planting seasons exactly how long do we have to tolerate this anti carbon drivel? I appreciate that it is a brilliant tool for government to extract tax and control people but seriously- 0.005 to 0.001 degrees? How dim we must be to put up with this rubbish on top of all the other anti freedom, anti free speech and plain subversion of democracy currently practised by the Westminster cabal.

And town-planning in this country is a tragedy. I live near a town that was once a beautiful town in the days of Jane Austen – it’s since been ruined by uneducated, culturally-backward town planners – and you can see this all over the country (the Nazis had a go at destroying out beautiful cities – but I think our own town planners have been more successful).

(And commerce and culture are NOT mutually exclusive – this is a HERESY – in fact, commerce and culture should compliment each other – at least this is what happened in Florence and Venice and in so much of medieval Europe – things seem to taken a turn for the worst with the secular ‘Enlightenment’ and the rise of utilitarianism).

@Ed Mahony – One can only agree
If we look at the beautiful buildings that lasted for many decades, if not hundreds of years, the ones built in the last century are pathetic and probably won’t stand for much more than a few decades – Council houses/flats are certainly not made to last.
It might have something to do with the British concept of buying and producing cheaply, but it does nothing to improve the quality of life.

Very shortly there won’t be a town centre worth visiting, but that is down to government(EU) policy as much as the planners…

Here’s an example that supports what you say about uneducated culturally backwards town planners.

Cambridge railway station apron has recently been re-developed. You should see the chaos at peak times with taxi overspill into what should be a pick-up and set-down area for private cars. Nobody can get in or out!

I wouldn’t trust the planners in this city to complete a 5-piece jigsaw puzzle without making a balls of it!

No matter how much the UK does to cut Co2 it will still not be enough to stop any of the undefendable predictions about terrible things to come, nor will it prevent hypocritical environmentalists descending on an area and leaving it in a filthy state, with mountains of rubbish left behind.
Like so many other things, the UK has fallen in line with the global establishment to punish people for an alleged disaster that shows no sign of coming along – We used to be able to think for ourselves, but now we just accept the establishment view.
Just remember that trees and plants need Co2.

The claimed CO2 reduction is false. Car emissions were false. The zero emissions of Drax and the planned American tree burning, as instructed by the EU, is false and would take, 60 years to take effect, even if transport, manufacturing and soil were ignored. The export of manufacturing to countries with high emissions is omitted.

Anyway, if we plant trees on the ground previously used for grass and farting cows and sheep, then the vegetarian ecos will eat crops like soys beans, grown on land where forests stood and humans will do the farting instead.

Sorry John, to write off topic, but I think there will be a lot of your readers interested in the result of your letter to your party’s Attorney General.

On the 15th April you wrote him a stunning letter asking for clarification of the WA. The article was titled:
“Letter to the Attorney General about the legal impact of signing the wrongly named Withdrawal Treaty.”

What is the latest on this? Indeed have you received a response and if not can I enquire how you will be following up this issue.

Reply No response. Of course I will report one when I get it. My office chases unanswered correspondence regularly

More trees yes but not more Theresas who must have wasted tons of useless paper in the last 3 years going nowhere fast. Whatever happened to the reduced paper computer revolution. Folks feel paper has more permanence but false promises in manifestos and 585 legal pages in the WA break this myth.

I see the CEO of energy company EDF points out that we will need to rapidly increase the electricity generation capacity of the UK by over 4 times our current level in order to achieve what the Climate Committee want.
He says this can only be done by a combination of nuclear and renewables.
We have lots of politicians demanding action but the same ones are unable to formulate a workable plan nor provide the funding to achieve it.

Fed up…..The same politicians do not go public with their protestations (even prompted by the Swedish Miss) to China, USA, India etc who are the real villians regarding population and high use of resources. While we are expected to beat ourselves up over less than 1% guilt of the problem, I cannot get motivated by the issue.
Get rid of coal burning, reduce benefits/ family allowances for over 2 children, plant millions of trees, ban older gas guzzlers, ban the worst real-world diesel polluters, provide eco-friendly female products, provide really cheap contraceptives/ long-term solutions for individuals, subsidise replacement of old inefficient boilers, subsidise thermal efficiency products, replace road-tax by addition of petrol/diesel tax.

I completely agree. The two greatest things in nature are trees and clouds. The former converts life-giving CO2 and the latter is the greatest contributor to keeping our planet at a nice warm temperature.

Clouds are water, an abundance of them in the UK cuts off the warming effect of the sun. Then they invariably give us rain that we fail to collect and distribute efficiently. They are already talking of hose pipe bans. No serious complaints though, weather being our principal subject for conversation until Brexit came along.

agricola…and we need to educate/make alternatives available, to the masses who tip all manner of chemicals, waste and various polutants into the sewage system. Surely the cost, and blockages of the systems are in excess of a campaign to educate and supply alternatives to ‘tip it down the toilet or sink?

Sir John, I recommend to you reading ‘Wilding’ by Isabella Tree (about rewilding Knepp in W. Sussex). This challenges much of current farm practice, and much of DEFRA’s thinking. Under current policies, ‘reverting arable land to scrub or woodland halves its value’ (p302). New policies need to be devised so as to value and respect Nature and natural processes far more (flood prevention is an easy example). Leaving the EU gives us an opportunity to do this. You will need to radically change governmental thinking if we are to benefit from this opportunity and not waste it.
Chris Packham writes: ‘A poignant, practical and moving story of how to fix our broken land, this should be conservation’s salvation; this should be its future; this is a new hope.’
I hope you enjoy reading the book.
Best wishes.

I notice that the current rewilding petition on the No 10 website is dominated by signatures from the wildest parts of Britain, although some of them are threatened by wind farms. Western Scotland, Kielder Forest, Lake District, Welsh mountains, Dartmoor and Exmoor, Lands End, South Downs, Derbyshire Dales…

There’s a lot we can do by just being sensible. My garden is a haven for birds and butterflies – some of the latter probably increased by last year’s hot spell – which the fanatics said was a sign of rapid warming. I also grow much of our own fruit and veg in an allotment adjoining my garden. Again, I avoid unnatural things as far as possible, which requires skill, knowledge and determination – something many good-lifers distinctly lack! I learnt these things in my post-war childhood, when productive gardens were so much more a feature of life, even for council tenants. I’m quite sure there’s much more peace to be found in one’s own plot, than too much jet-setting to far-off climes. Having said all this, I’m highly sceptical of the febrile and coercive Climate Change Alarmism, which is so selective in its facts and prognostications, and has all the hallmarks of a diabolical piece control-freakery. I’d never allow a child of mine to be used in such a foolish and subtly abusive way – but just watch the politicians and other globalist power-brokers lap it up! Says it all, really. Anyway, I have my sights on Emmanuel’s Land! (Cf. Isaiah 61:11)

Norman….I think I am correct in saying builders simply lay turf over their rubble, when it should be mandatory to remove rubble within say 1 foot depth of garden, and plant an apple tree or similar, plus a Buddleia or similar. These will add blossom, fruit and attractiveness within 2 years. There is also a case for a rainwater barrel. All to much trouble it seems.

There is a UN driven globalist climate agenda which should undergo the most rigorous scrutiny by genuine climatology experts. The amount of money involved in the global warming scam amounts to trillions, and it does not represent a way to prevent global climate change but in my view is simply a wealth generating exercise, among other things.

Fortunately President Trump is challenging the group think on this and has for example realigned the work at NASA back to space exploration rather than their existence apparently being dependent in the past on every more funding for producing climate data which will support the UN/globalists’ agenda.

There is so much information available on how many so called expert committees are nothing of the sort, but just glorified representatives of lobbyist groups/special interests. There is not the space or time to go into this further here, but google UN Agenda 21 and see where the powers that be are heading. Also for a quick look at cronyism in these committees see Ben Pile twitter.

Globally climates will always change and the climate in the UK has ranged from tropical, to deserts, to glacial conditions and so on, and Man was not around to effect that millions of years ago. The research into solar activity is well advanced and provides significant evidence that it is the engine for global climate change.

Microclimates and local climates can be altered by Man e.g. removing of forests, or building new towns. Urban local climates have been the subject of studies for many years – heat islands, wind funnelling effect, and so on. Environmental legislation may well be necessary to deal with specific examples. However that is no justification for the massive tax hikes, and the tsunami of damaging and intrusive regulations that we are now enduring, and which are being demanded further, on the basis of flawed science and lobbying by interest groups.

Bring back proper rigorous scientific scrutiny by genuine experts, and subject the lobbying groups, big business and activists claims to the most rigorous and impartial examination, instead of letting these interests hijack committees or buy their way to influence.

Pace of house building around Wokingham too fast? – government policy over the last 20 years or so has been to increase the population and economic policies have favoured the south east of the country.

UK carbon less than many others? – it’s been pointed out many times that we have sub-contracted much of our heavy industry abroad which aids us in this department, but on the other hand the pollution from air travel should perhaps be allocated to the destination on a round trip rather than the departure point.

Well Everhopeful if you miss all you list move to southern Spain where we have it in abundance with the exception of the knife crime. An abundance of well armed police deters the latter and much other criminality. No PC, people express themselves freely and that damp cloth on doing anything excting, health and safety only manifests itself where it makes sense, not at your bouncy castle birthday party.

Pity they don’t see it your way in Worcestershire, Sir John. Here there are people equipped with chainsaws actively SEARCHING for trees to destroy and green belt to build on.
It’s actually painful to see.

Geographically spot on. The removal of two beautiful flowering cherry trees at the bottom of Bath Road into Sidbury is a prime example of what the County Council have recently done, with no reference to the City Council. Their pathetic transparent excuse was that at some unspecified time in the future they would have to be removed to put a new traffic management system in place. They claimed to be protecting birds that might choose to nest in said trees
if and when they got around to starting the work. No sign of any workmen and cones as yet. Meanwhile hundreds of defecating noisy seagulls circle over Worcester every day unchallenged.

My gas central heating/hot water boiler has just broken down and is unfortunately beyond repair. My big question is, now that the Government have declared a Climate Emergency what technology do I replace my boiler with?

A new condensing boiler would mean we are still reliant on fossil fuels and are emitting CO2. Heat pump is a massive expensive undertaking that may not be efficient with our current central heating set up. Hydrogen boilers sound great but they are still converting natural gas to hydrogen.

Before I make any decisions I just wonder, what greener heating technologies are the Government planning to back and subsidise in order to help us reach our tougher emissions targets?

I agree with you that trees are vital – see the press statement issued by the Woodland Trust yesterday. So why is HS2 being allowed to destroy or damage so many Ancient Woodlands? HS2 Ltd argues that they will be planting 7 million trees, but new trees can never replace Ancient Woods, which, by definition, are at least 400 years old. Not to mention all the flaura and fauna associated with these sites. Moreover where they had already planted new trees last year, these were allowed to die during the heatwave, as it was more ‘cost-effective’ to let them die rather than water them. This shows no respect whatsoever for the environment or living beings. HS2 Ltd is now, during the bird-nesting season, proceeding with a policy of vegetation clearance involving both trees and hedgerows at a time when they have no permit to proceed with the construction of the line, and indeed no final route. Many of these trees may be lost for no reason.

I have observed that during the last winter period, many of the affected hedgerows were covered with impenetrable mesh, so as to prevent any nests being built. I would prefer the HS2 project to be quietly dropped but at least it mitigates some of the disruption.

I do not know about the effects of CO2 on the climate and perhaps those that do cannot state definitively that man made CO2 emissions are solely responsible. However, it would only be prudent to reduce our environmental impact, where technologically possible and within a sensible timeframe, in case rapid climate change really is caused by human activity. In any event, a cleaner world benefits us all.

I have little time for the vociferous climate change brigade who demonstrate and demand practically overnight reductions in CO2 emissions but then get in their petrol / diesel powered cars to return to their centrally-heated homes and get ready for their next foreign holidays in far away places.

We all want to live in a cleaner, greener world but it must be done sensibly. It must be done at a pace that does not overnight reduce us all to living in caves.

The greed of people is greater than the need for survival, you should know you have been teaching it all your life and where did you learn it from UNI.

Central banks printing money with never-ending inflation and globalization, they have done it now and you cannot stop it, you live on a little island and think by planting one tree for every thousand cut down in world will make a difference, Chian will print money to cut down every rain forest in the world and you can’t stop them nor will stop the people in these country from doing it to make a living.

There is no point on being hard on people living on this small island and making them live in poverty and without housing to make politicians in parliament look good on the world stage by printing money and giving it away to other countries who are poor so that they can build housing buy cars fridges and tv and then build coal fire station so they can use the things.

4 billion people living in Africa by 2100 with help from the UK by printing money and over 4 billion people living in Chian, just in those two places is the world population of today and all need power and food and on this little island by order of parliament and the elite, over 100 million people living to hear, only thing i can think of at the moment is order up an asteroid to hit the planet to make it fair all round.

Some of the Climate Change Committee’s suggestions beggar belief. It is illogical to replace very efficient (90% source to heat) condensing boilers with 30% or so electric equivalents at enormous expense which will require enormous expenditure on extra (carbon neutral) power generation. 19C for house thermostats is sensible for many (I have set mine at that for years) but too low for many, especially elderly. They also suggest hot water thermostats to be set at 55C – for many years the minimum temperature for this has been 60C to prevent legionella. As for red meat, no way will I reduce that.
Yes, woodland is nice (currently enjoying walking through it on the London Loop walk) but there is a limit to how much more we can grow.

I can only go on available information as to the net oxygen benefit of a rain forest alone which given its animal insect population is a net non-producer of Oxygen to name but one gas.

An agricultural crop though not exampled as a counter argument as far as I am aware, however does produce a surfeit of Oxygen it is said. Plus employment and wealth to make even more windmills.

Frankly, I do to find forests so very good. They not loved even in Canada. Much of a muchness and the midges do bite away from the Ontario region where they are of the “toothless” variety and yes they, have tickled me personally without after effect.

Other nasty midges and insects are said to be carriers of Lymes disease.
Woodland however as you say JR is pleasant and is also productive in terms of employment and enjoyment
It may also give Climate Change very-youngsters something to do and keep them off the streets which would be cool

More trees would be good.
But please don’t do it the way some councils do.
Things that upset me:
A lot of big trees next to many of the roads. Problem being that these trees have killed, and seriously injured, many drivers and car passengers over the last few years. The slightest mistake on the road, or icy conditions etc, and there is a very high chance you will end up hitting one of the many trees right next to the roads, and these big trees have no “give” whatsoever. Even at slow speed a collision with a large immoveable tree right next to the road is a serious injury or death collision. I simply don’t believe these trees need to be where they are, they could all be removed and replaced with trees away from the road system. The limited role these trees play in separating paths from road could be done with proper road furniture, like barriers, which is designed to “give” if hit by a car. Put keeping people alive before trees please.
Next is the overzealous application of “tree protection orders” for masses of ordinary unremarkable trees. So, for example, when new build housing is approved the estates come with lots of trees in inconvenient places which the builders have to work around at vast expense (pushing up the cost of housing), and householders end up with tree growing right next to their windows and roofs (risking inevitable damage when there is a storm). What a lot of nonsense. “tree protection orders” should be reserved for a small number of trees per town or city, with special historical or environmental reasons to be protected, not vast numbers of bog-standard trees. Allow interested parties to have such trees removed, as long as they replace them with equivalent or more trees elsewhere (in more suitable places) in the town or city.
Where trees are on the boundary of public parks owned and managed by councils, next to privately owned houses, there should be much more power in the hands of the home owner to force the councils to maintain these trees properly, and in particular keep the branches cut back from the home owners garden etc. In many cases the poor home owners end up having to pay to maintain council owned trees.
So yes, more trees, but in properly planned places please.

The majority of politicians will do what they can next week to stop the EU election of MEPs taking place, why because it will be seen as a second ref on the EU with the whole of UK voting, if they lose it to the Brexit party by a big amount, the politician will be in trouble in the UK because the EU elite won’t want double the amount Brexiteers going into their parliament and the second ref to stay in the EU will be dead in the water, the EU elite won’t have it and if they push ahead with the CU without the people behind them by way of an election, it could be all change again if the Brexit party win the next election and take the UK out of the CU, it would a waste of time.

Individual temperature records commonly used by climatologists and paleoclimatologists show that the past 1,000 years have been marked by periodic warm and cold periods, not by a uniform climate trend. The recent warming trend since about 1850 appears to be the continuation of the warming following the Little Ice Age, rather than a sudden upsurge after a long period of relatively uniform temperatures. The detailed temperature record since 1850 shows a temperature decline between 1940 and 1970, which flies in the face of the explanation that a continuous exponential increase in carbon dioxide causes global warming. And the simultaneous record of temperature and carbon dioxide concentration in ice cores indicates that carbon dioxide concentration changes after temperature changes, not before, indicating that carbon dioxide is the result, not the cause, of global warming.

Dear Sir John, Yes let us plant more trees, replant more suburban hedgerows for wildlife and expand local coppicing. In general, however, large-scale timber production cannot compete with imports without subsidy or protection.
Some years ago, not being expert in such matters, I devised a three-part test to judge whether politicians of all hues were really serious about climate change. None passed. On the updated test, the questions would be:
Do you favour a rapid, large-scale expansion of nuclear power?
Would you curtail intercontinental trade in low value/weight goods?
Would you cancel the third runway at Heathrow?
I would only take seriously those who said yes to all three, because if CO2 emissions are really the greatest threat to humanity, let alone there being a climate emergency, all three would be necessary.

Alarmists say carbon when they mean CO2 because it souns dirtier. CO2 is invisible, so visible emissions from cooling towers are water vapour; if black then shadows have been enhanced with a light filter.

Indeed. I saw that the UK CO2 emissions were estimated at 361 million tonnes for 2018, which is about 5.5 tonnes per capita. But it’s only 1.5 tonnes per capita if you just quote the carbon element: both statistics are used.

I note that Christian Aid have been pushing a pamphlet to schools that contains a lot of false information about emissions. It should be withdrawn.

Oh and by the way woodland coverage at the time the Domseday Book was written ( 1086) recorded woodland coverage at 15% The population of England in the 11th century was approx 3-3.5 million people . The population of England now is 57 million

1524…..2.3 million
1541…..2.7 million
1550…..2.9 million
1569…..3.2 million
1599…..4.0 million
in 1520, 6% of the population lived in urban areas (towns of over 4,000 people)
in 1520, 3% of the population lived in London.

We could do our countryside and wildlife a power of good if we simply left large parts of it well alone. Instead of giving fancy labels and then encouraging everyone and their dogs to trample and ramble all over it, scaring wildlife in the process and destroying habitat, close it off to everyone, especially and including all those who insist on ‘monitoring’ it. My observation of them at a site near me shows they cannot resist meddling., widening paths, building litter bins putting up signs etc..

Okay so you are all mostly mad on here. Intent on burning carbon – a filthy practice no matter which way you do it – to release energy.

Why not use renewables? Is it so awful to use renewables. What is so great about burning carbon? Ahh, they are more expensive! Big bloody deal. So, use less. Someone said over insulating our houses is causing mould! Really? I grew up in a house with no central heating – just one fireplace in the ‘back room’. Every window reveal had mould in the winter. The wallpaper had damp patches. Yet every insulated house I have lived in since has had no mould! Fancy that.

And, incredibly, you seem to be against planting trees! Can you stoop any lower? Be any more stupid? What would it hurt anyone if every field in England, as well as being bounded by hedges, was also bounded by deciduous trees planted 50 feet apart? Would that be so terrible.

The mind boggles. The sooner us lot die off and leave the world to people who still have a future ahead of them the better.

Nitrogen — 78 percent
Oxygen — 21 percent
Argon — 0.93 percent
Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent
Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapour.
The largest component by far, is Nitrogen which is an inert gas and will cause hypoxia if the O2 level is too low <12%. It is a dangerous gas, so much so that it is used in Oklahoma to execute prisoners carrying the death penalty. Compare the volume of N2 in the atmosphere with that of CO2 and CO2 is a micro size. So why is there so much emphasis put on the gas when it is so insignificant in our atmosphere and when the 78% of dangerous N2 does not get a mention?
Without Carbon or CO2 life on Earth would perish. Plants thrive on CO2 just as animals do on O2 and chopping down thousands of forests to feed the craze of bio-fules releases thousands of tons of CO2. Rather ironic don't you think?

Looking through the trees, I do not like a process that condemns a man for something he strenuously denies and cuts off any means of redress. It smells of a kangeroo court.

To add an air of respectability to the decision the DPP are called into No 10 and it is decided that no crime has been committed and there has been no breach of the OSA. It could be interpreted as denying the accused of his day in court, because this could embarass the PM who was seen to be acting out of malice and nothing else.

It could be, from a conspiracy theorists point of view, that the PM and her Cabinet Secretary conspired to leak to the DT in a deniable black op,just to rid herself of a Defence Secretary she did not like.

We have a Commons Security Committee ,whose members must be possitively vetted, so let them look into it, calling both the PM and her Secretary before it to produce the evidence of their investigation and to be cross examined. Less chance of either of them getting away with the three times obfusticating answers the PM gave to a Sky reporter today. This alone suggested that there was more to this affair that is being kept under wraps to draw a veil over yet another dodgy decision coming out of No 10. I smell a rat.

I think this is no different to what we are about to see with a stitch-up of the Withdrawal Agreement. The coalition of May and Corbyn are going to condemn the UK to the WA and all that it entails. The people of the UK will be denied their chance to defend themselves from this WA, there will be no day at the ballot box. Without a referendum including Remain and No Deal options the UK will be condemned at best to little future, at worst to no freedom and no democracy. We will never know why the Conservative-Labour coalition and their followers wish to entrap the UK and enslave its people, the victors write history.

B-b-but… the greeny/remainy/lefties want to increase global population, increase living standards for all, increase Britain’s population in particular, reduce Britain’s carbon footprint to zero… all at the same time – and to do it NOW !

Phew ! That’s some ask.

Then they tell us that we’re to be global influencers on the subject… whilst telling us that we’re too insignificant to leave the EU and go it alone.

Climate change,
Well I am so damned old I can even remember that in the early 70s we were to expect , yes an Ice age, we were indeed told to expect ( A Nuclear Winter ) was the term used !

We learned last week that 100 years ago the population of this big rock we all live on was 1-7 billion, now it is over 7 billion , and I was informed on this page that the CO2 was higher then ?
As for this Government, well what can be said that has not been said , every day more gross incompetents, more lies, J R is still waiting for a reply that he will never ever get, also the extra 4 million added to the 200 hundred million looking into stoping slavery, no audit on that yet, anyone might think we are still in the EU.

And I thought they were the good guys, I am gutted by the lot of them, the lies the shenanigans every single day , and yet there are people who stand by this PM and the Party

I think it should be compulsory for all of us to pull up Richard Harris playing Cromwell, and his fantastic rendition of Cromwell sacking Parliament and getting rid of the damned lot.
Come back Cromwell all is forgiven.

What have we come to , what a prize bunch we have here, Cromwell told them in 1653 that they were so bad they would be unable to run a whore house.

Good article, very much agree.
The National Trust on some occasions are very bad guardians. Near me (in Essex) they cut down several acres of bluebell woods (with 200-300 yr old trees), they said to create a habitat for ground nesting birds (well why didn’t they purchase an adjacent field) – they create ruin and treat us as stupid.
I gather the NT have cut down woods elsewhere in the country. We need some protection mechanisms against some of their questionable decisions and whatever agenda they have.

We need trees on polluted pavements but Councils prefer to plant them in grass because it’s cheaper. Parks and suburbs end up with most of the new plantations and inner cities continue to live divorced from nature. But councils do for some reason like planting trees and wild flowers down the middle of roads for motorists to look at as they belch past.

Home insulation needs to make economic sense. The planning application reveals that the insulation that was applied to the Grenfell Tower had a potential payback period of over 200 years – way beyond the likely life of the building or the insulation, even without the tragic fire. Similar considerations apply to the plans that the greens want to impose now. I have seen an estimate that retrofitting the existing housing stock to the standards they want would cost of the order of £2 trillion, or over £70,000 per home, before adding future refurbishment costs. It would of course have other undesirable consequences in cutting the internal area of many homes, blocking up more windows than window tax, and making them ugly, inadequately ventilated etc. But most importantly it is likely to prove wholly uneconomic for the great majority of homes, with energy savings never paying the cost – just another vanity green project.

We should concentrate on sensible levels of insulation where the payback period is short – 7 years or less is really required for consumers to benefit.

In our little bubble of climate purity, we are self-flagellating for no purpose. We are told that we must meet our targets under the Paris Agreement. China agreed to carry on building more coal plants until 2030, by which time they will have sufficient capacity to burn coal for another 50 years.

From 2000 to 2018, China increased coal power by almost 400 %, India by almost 260%, both have more planned. The rest of Asia is following and the Chinese are building 300 plants around the world outside China. Former Soviet Union continues pretty much as normal, Central Europe increases, as does non-EU Europe.

China emits 13,000 Mte of CO2 per year. (That is 35.6 Mte of CO2 per DAY)
The UK emits 360 Mte of CO2 per YEAR.

If the government were able to make the UK carbon neutral tomorrow, China would put all that CO2 back into the atmosphere in just 10 days.

How foolish can our politicians be, to fall for this comedy?

About John Redwood

John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.